What exactly does BABIP tell us?

by journeymen on Apr 22, 2008 1:02 PM EDT

This doesn't exactly fall under minor league information, but it does affect how to determine prospects. The Washington Post today published a chart titled "Lowest Batting Averagge on Balls Put in Play, Career". Good - this is a good way to tell if BABIP shows luck or skill. When I look at the top six for the American League: Jerrod Washburn, Tim Wakefield, Paul Byrd, Steve Trachsel, Mark Buehrle, and Brett Tomko, I don't see too many stars (Halladay was 7th and Mussina 8th), and think that once a ball is hit, it's all luck as to whether or not a pitcher is successful. But then I look at the top six of the National League: Barry Zito, Pedro Martinez, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Greg Maddux, and Tim Hudson (followed by Moyer and Park), and with four Hall of Famers and two guys who've made a few all-star games, you gotta think that BABIP is a reflection of skill. I still don't know. What do you guys think?

0 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

it depends

I don’t think BABIP tells us much without some level of context. It’s good for just a quick look (which is all I usually have time for), but it’s a flawed stat by itself.

In many ways, BABIP attempts to quantify luck and whether or not a pitcher (or hitter) will regress to the mean. Defense, however, plays a large part in this. I bet the BABIP for Mets pitchers against left handed hitters could be pretty high this season. But is this a reflection on Mets pitching or the right side of their infield defense (Castillo and Delgado)? I don’t really know the answer to that specific question, but I think it illustrates the context aspect to the stat.

Park effects could also play a part in this, though I haven’t done enough research on how. It would interesting to see the BABIP and DER for specific parks. Not sure what resource is available to see that info.

Ultimately, I prefer to use BABIP in context with things like LD% and IF%. This puts the stat without the context of the types of batted balls, which I think gives a better picture than BABIP by itself.

by count sutton on Apr 22, 2008 1:23 PM EDT 0 recs

Pitch/fx

Baseballhq ran some studies using the new technology, Pitch/fx, last year. They ended up proving, I believe, that there are some elements a pitcher can control (like not putting the ball in spots a ball can be crushed). Also, ground balls have, if I recall, a 21 % chance of going for a hit. So a pitcher with a higher GB % is likely to have a lower BABIP.

So, it’s still a work in progress but the pitch/fx technology is going to open up some things in the coming years.

by Deech on Apr 22, 2008 1:27 PM EDT 0 recs

Also, ground balls have, if I recall, a 21 % chance of going for a hit. So a pitcher with a higher GB % is likely to have a lower BABIP.

I believe it’s actually the other way around. Ground balls tend to be hits more often than fly balls, but that is way offset by the fact that groundballs are rarely extra base hits and never homeruns.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Apr 22, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

Re:

No, ground balls go for about 21 % and if I recall, fly balls were 19%....but you don’t want fly ball pitchers. Sure, the hits might be lower, but usually that means the line drives (it was like 40 something % for LD) and home runs will be much higher than a high GB pitcher.

by Deech on Apr 22, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up 0 recs

A pitcher

A pitcher who has a higher ground ball percentage because his line drive percentage is lower will almost certainly have a lower BABIP. But if the higher ground ball percentage comes with a lower fly ball percentage, it appears the BABIP would be slightly higher.

I believe I have seen that about 70% of line drive become hits. If that figure isn’t right, I would think it might be even slightly higher.

Incidentally, as well as Tim Lincecum has pitched, his BABIP against is a startling .364. If he continues to pitch as well as he has been (which isn’t likely, since he’s bound to have a FEW stinkers), he might wind up with an even LOWER ERA than he already has. That said, his best pitching has been done with RISP, giving him a very high strand percentage.

It is surprising that Tim has yet to yield a triple or a home run, but I can remember only one deep ball being hit particularly hard against him, a line drive double to deep right center by James Loney on April 2nd.

by sharksrog on Apr 22, 2008 4:00 PM EDT up 0 recs

I must be missing something

You say no, but then you said that GBs go for hits 21% of the time and FB 19% of the time. So GBs have a higher BABIP, right?

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Apr 22, 2008 7:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

Typo, but sort of true

It’s even less

LD for hits – 71.4%
GB for hits – 20.3%
FB for hits – 11.2%

Anyway, yeah FBs goes for less hits so GB% would be higher. Gotta remember though, a HR counts as a hit but not in BABIP (because its not put in play). Also, there are not an equal amount of FBs to GBs. The ratio is 1.5:1 GB:FB

PLUS, with fly balls, roughly 11.5% of them end up home runs, that’s a pretty high percentage for such a big event.

So simply put, extreme GB/FB pitchers do tend to have a lower BABIP than average. Actually, I have no idea what this convo is about lol. When I was quoted I said high GB pitchers have lower BABIP, thats a true statement. But the point I now brought up was that fly ball pitchers loose this edge by giving up more home runs.

by Deech on Apr 22, 2008 7:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

I still don’t see how GB pitchers have a lower BABIP, even for extreme GB pitchers. You can’t include HR’s in that calculation because it’s not a ball in play.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Apr 22, 2008 7:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

Well

think about it, the average BABIP is around 29-30 ....ground balls have a 20 chance to be a hit…more Gb = more likely to be under that 29-30 mark

it’s true and there are essays about it….run some google terms and you’ll find it, they are fun reads…im running off to each but i ran a quick search and todd Zola’s SI article came up, I tihnk it explains it about GB pitchers (I didnt read it)....if not there should be something on hardballtimes.com or fangraphs on it.

by Deech on Apr 22, 2008 7:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yes

According to the numbers you gave, yes GB is about 20%, and FB is about 11%. Hence, GBs are more likely to be hits and have a higher BABIP.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Apr 22, 2008 8:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

Im confused

I never said otherwise.

by Deech on Apr 22, 2008 8:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

Seriously?

So a pitcher with a higher GB % is likely to have a lower BABIP.

So simply put, extreme GB/FB pitchers do tend to have a lower BABIP than average…When I was quoted I said high GB pitchers have lower BABIP, thats a true statement.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Apr 22, 2008 8:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

yeah, lol

I said a higher GB% would have a lower BABIP. I didn’t say higher than a FB pitcher.

by Deech on Apr 22, 2008 8:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

First indented paragraph

http://www.futilityinfielder.com/dips04.html

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Apr 22, 2008 8:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

Players regress to their career BABIP

not necessarily the average for all players. Speed and swing definitely matter.

by number_twentyone on Apr 22, 2008 2:18 PM EDT 0 recs

I agree

I agree with you about players’ regressing to their career BABIP’s. When I project minor league players, I usually project them based on a .300 BABIP. With guys who have played a while in the majors, I use their career BABIP or possibly something between that and .300.

by sharksrog on Apr 22, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

Interesting that...

... the entire list of guys in the AL, Washburn, Wakefield, Byrd, Trachsel, Buehrle are EXACTLY the kind of guys who HAVE to have sucess in throwing off hitters timing, getting ground balls, holding runners, etc… precisely BECAUSE they don’t strike out people. if they DIDN”T do these things they wouldn’t still be in the big leagues.

They may not be STARS in your mind but, whats more likely? That these guys have been LUCKY for 7,8,9 years or that they are at least decent at getting hitters to hit the ball soffter? I HATE the general discussion of BABIP andf think it is obvious if you watch the game that guys who PITCH might get a lower BABIP. Not to say that having a good defense behind them isnt a big factor as well. I’m sure they’d all tell you that.

Particularily intersting to me was Tim Wakefield on the list. Even the most rabid proponent of saying “its all luck” must admit by watching Wakefield pitch for a few minutes (or a long career) that his WHOLE GAME is getting hitters to strike the ball more poorly than they normally would. It’s far from luck and thats just an easy to see fact.

by casejud on Apr 22, 2008 2:34 PM EDT 0 recs

what "general discussion" are you talking about?

it’s always been “generally” accepted that knuckleballers exert some (more?) control over BABIP. no shit it’s an easy to see fact.

in their respective baseball purgatories, both frank thomas and jerry owens loudly whine.

by larry on Apr 22, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up 0 recs

No effect

Generally. on here and other places I’ve heard it said that pitchers don’t have an effect on the results of balls put in play and i think that is silly. Not just knuckleballers either. I’m glad that it is generally excepted that knucklballers do. I didn’t know that. Glad to hear it though because it is obvious.

by casejud on Apr 23, 2008 4:28 AM EDT up 0 recs

wow

let me just say that you should never listen to any of those people ever again on anything. those people obviously have never even bothered to read any of the research done on this subject (and it’s not like this stuff is particularly voluminous).

in their respective baseball purgatories, both frank thomas and jerry owens loudly whine.

by larry on Apr 23, 2008 9:57 AM EDT up 0 recs

Response

For the benefit of those of you who, like me, have taken to playing the “make a sentence using the words that casejud capitalized in his post” game, the words are:

EXACTLY HAVE BECAUSE DIDN’T STARS LUCKY HATE PITCH WHOLE GAME

by mrkupe on Apr 22, 2008 9:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

ASS KISS MINE

No, seriously, that’s cool. Have fun with it Pal. That’s why I do it. Just for you.

by casejud on Apr 23, 2008 4:25 AM EDT up 0 recs

washburn

Washburn, unless he’s changed recently, is an extremely flyball pitcher. I read somewhere that flyballs make more outs than line drives and ground balls. The problem is they lead to move homeruns.

Carlos Quentin's time has arrived.

by Team Moneyball on Apr 22, 2008 3:04 PM EDT 0 recs

Certain types of pitchers

are prone to have lower BABIPs in general, primarily heavy flyball pitchers, knuckleballers, and pitchers with late movement.

The opposite end of the spectrum is more useful. In the minors, an easy way to tell if the pitcher is going to make it in the bigs is their BABIP. Most non-prospects have higher BABIPs than prospects, simply because guys who are more hittable than major league pitchers are going to get hit more. There are some fringe major leaguers who will tend to have higher than normal BABIPs for this reason, although they usually don’t last in the bigs for all that long, because it’s usually apparent from both a scout and a stathead perspective that the player just isn’t cut out for the majors.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Apr 22, 2008 3:44 PM EDT 0 recs

I like this perspective

I like your perspective here, (Built like a) Brickhaus. I have felt that minor league hitters who built their averages on a high BABIP are more likely to see their averages fall when they reach the majors with the better fielding and positioning.

With pitchers, you are saying that just the opposite is true—that a lower BABIP against makes the pitcher a BETTER prospect. That makes sense to me.

by sharksrog on Apr 22, 2008 4:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

if you have BP subscription

[i imagine this is restricted article but click away]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3946

if not a BP guy, here’s the BABIP upshot (with some noise on other stuff mixed in):

Overall, the results are clear. The pitchers who made the major leagues are, not surprisingly, better than their counterparts who did not, by every measure of pitching you may desire-including giving up fewer hits per ball in play. Looking at the data for all 72 leagues, there were six leagues where the non-major pitchers had a better BABIP than the major league pitchers, just as there were six leagues where the non-majors allowed fewer home runs. Strikeouts broke “wrong” once; walks never did. The margins were not as large-the major league pitchers were typically 10-15% better in home runs, walks, and strikeouts, but only about 3% better in BABIP—but they were present and consistent. Just as Tom Tippett concluded, based on looking at pitchers by the length of their major league careers, one has to say that BABIP looks like just as much of a skill as home run, walk, or strikeout rates.

in their respective baseball purgatories, both frank thomas and jerry owens loudly whine.

by larry on Apr 22, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up 0 recs

You've promoted H/9 before here, right?

Do you have any links on the subject? As a devotee of Voros, I have some difficulty believing this. There are a lot of really poor defenders in the minors, and a lot of gimmicky parks in Texas and California.

by number_twentyone on Apr 22, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

not brickaus

but the link i posted above should help. and all he’s saying, if i’m reading him right, is that good prospects will generally have lower BABIPs than non-prospects. if you’re comparing apples to apples, for the most part, as one would be doing if one is comparing prospects from the same team or even league, what you are concerned about shouldn’t be much of a problem. at any rate, if you’re a BP subscriber, the link above helps break through some of the noise you mention.

in their respective baseball purgatories, both frank thomas and jerry owens loudly whine.

by larry on Apr 22, 2008 6:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

to get to the original question of the diary

see this article. preventing hits on balls in play is a “minor” skill, which is why it’s difficult to measure and there are such fluctuations (a guy will be at the top of the league one year and the bottom the next). but, over the course of a career, the effect becomes more obvious. it’s still mostly luck/defense but the pitcher does exert some control.

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/ipavg2.htm

this is still a topic of some debate, especially in regard to the amount of skill, but the evidence seems to be pretty clear that it ain’t all luck, as voros originally posited.

in their respective baseball purgatories, both frank thomas and jerry owens loudly whine.

by larry on Apr 22, 2008 4:44 PM EDT 0 recs

LOL

Of course it’s a skill. Watch a game and you will see certain pitchers get weak ground balls and their ground ball rate will be lower than others. Some pitchers will get more pop-ups which hugely affects babip. And there is certainly more to it.

One thing it isn’t is luck. Just because some stats people can’t understand something they must invent a stat and shove it down peoples throats ;)

by pedrophile on Apr 24, 2008 9:18 AM EDT 0 recs

If

If controlling BABIP doesn’t involve a good deal of luck, just why is it that Barry Zito has been so much better at it than guys such as Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, Johann Santana and Pedro Martinez? ;)

by sharksrog on Apr 29, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up 0 recs